Light Bulb Saga Illuminates New Republicans: Margaret Carlson

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- How many Republicans does it take
to screw in an energy-efficient light bulb? The answer to that
riddle tells us much about the state of the Republican Party in
2011.

The light bulb ban has become a rallying cry on the right.
Rush Limbaugh called it an alarming advance of “statism.”
Minnesota Representative and Republican presidential candidate
Michele Bachmann promised that “President Bachmann will allow
you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of
America.”

The fact that there is no light bulb ban should in no way
spoil the fun, of course, but the issue does have some history.
Congress passed a bipartisan bill in 2007 requiring a phase-in
of more efficient lighting. Under the law, which was drafted
with industry input, a 100-watt incandescent bulb would have to
use only 72 watts of energy starting in 2012. Consumers, who
would save a considerable amount in energy costs, wouldn’t be
required to switch to the even more energy-efficient and cost-saving fluorescent bulbs; they could keep using the traditional
incandescent variety, provided those met the new standards.

The law passed the House with 95 Republican votes and was
signed by President George W. Bush. There were no riots in the
streets. Yet by the time Republicans took over the House in
January 2011, this previously uncontroversial legislation had
become the basis of an ideological war. Between 2007 and 2011,
energy waste and pollution seem to have become inviolable
conservative principles.

A Party Unmoored

The Republican congressman who was co-author of the 2007
bill, Representative Fred Upton of Michigan, renounced his own
work. Republican Representative Joe Barton, who had previously
claimed the spotlight to apologize to BP Plc for all the fuss
about its little oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, introduced a
bill repealing most of Upton’s energy-efficiency provisions.
(Bachmann called her version of repeal the Light Bulb Freedom of
Choice Act, arguably her crowning legislative achievement.)

A radical reversal on light bulbs won’t shake the
foundations of the republic, but it’s indicative of a party that
is unmoored from both philosophy and substantive politics.
Republicans today are defined not by what they are for but
almost exclusively by what they are against. And they are
against just about everything -- including many things they used
to be for. Like a code-red transplant patient, Republicans
increasingly reject the tissue of their own proposals and their
own reasonable history.

The individual mandate was once a pet Republican idea for
forcing free riders to pay for their share of society’s health-care costs, a way to enlarge the risk pool so that a system of
private insurance could continue to function without bankrupting
individuals or the nation. Conservatives didn’t rage against the
idea when former Governor Mitt Romney introduced it in
Massachusetts. Now it’s tantamount to death by socialism.

Cap-and-trade experienced a similar fate. Having been
successfully deployed by President George H.W. Bush to
dramatically reduce acid rain, this market-based approach to
reducing carbon emissions fell out of favor when Republicans
decided that science and those who practice it are ideological
enemies, and objective facts, evidence and reality are all tools
of the political opposition.

Ditto for federal loan guarantees, which are much in the
news due to the recent demise of government-backed solar panel
manufacturer Solyndra LLC. Former Republican Senator Pete
Domenici of New Mexico, a conservative in his day, viewed loan
guarantees as an appropriate way to encourage entrepreneurs in
high-risk ventures, even calling himself “a longtime advocate
of loan guarantees” in one press release. Now Republicans like
Senator David Vitter of Louisiana denounce them as “reckless”
(though Vitter repeatedly sought loan guarantees for a project
in his home state).

No Solutions

The problem here isn’t hypocrisy, which abounds at all
points on the political spectrum. It’s that Republicans have
abandoned market-based solutions in favor of no solutions at
all. They’ve traded in their traditional small-government
philosophy for anti-government rage, generally doing their level
best to look like yahoos whenever cameras are near.

In reality, there are very few Joe the Plumbers among the
largely wealthy, educated and professionally successful members
of the House and Senate Republican caucuses. Yet these
politicians are so afraid of their noisy anti-government, anti-intellectual wing that they fear expressing support for even the
most limited government -- the kind that can fix a highway or
keep a bridge from falling down (forget about building Hoover
Dam or creating a national park).

In their current frame of mind, House Republicans and their
brethren in the Senate may ultimately be legislating against
themselves. Whose interests are served when they try to roll
back food safety regulations, increasing the likelihood that
citizens will be sickened by salmonella and that U.S. food
companies will be harmed by the inevitable fallout? If
Republicans are so determined to be against something, maybe
they ought to drop the war on light bulbs and pick a fight with
E. coli.

(Margaret Carlson is a Bloomberg View columnist. The
opinions expressed are her own.)